Leica M10 for extra $2000 or go for M240?

[TheCanadian1]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Good Morning Everyone,

 

I rented the M240 for a week and fell in love. I have the opportunity to purchase a new M240 for $2000 Canadian cheaper than a M10. I prob shoot at ISO 3200 around 15 percent of the time and the rest mostly around 1000. I can purchase a Zeiss 50 Sonnar or Leica Summarit with the savings. I however do want the M10 as well. Any thoughts on which path to take? Thank you very much everyone!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Exodies]

Money spent on lenses is money well spent. The price of a digital camera is the cost of living, a burden which must be endured.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Jean-Michel]

I have an M9 and an MP, both are great cameras. When I purchased the MP it cost me a few hundred dollars more than the regular M (240), but I think that the difference was worth it. Today, buying a new camera I would likely go for the M10, not because of any issues with the MP or M9 but because of the improved viewfinder and possibly because of the better high ISO results. 

 

I don't know where in Canada you live, but I highly recommend speaking with Jean Bardaji at Camtec Photo (http://www.camtecphoto.com) in Montreal. I am sure that other Canadian dealers are also quite good, but Mr Bardaji and his colleague Daniel Weiner not only sell but also use Leica stuff.

 

Jean-Michel

[fotomas]

I have a M 240 and had planed to get a M 10 before they came out. But when it was introduced for me it became clear, that the my M 240 is the best digital Leica for me.

The only advantage of the M 10 is the higher ISO capability for me. But you can use the M 240 also up to 3200, if you don't underexpose. I can take pictures in a darkroom by hand. The rest of the M 10 is almost a drawback for me. No video, no USB-option, no GPS option, shorter battery life, no external flash sync, worse ISO setting, missing level.

So I will get a second M 240 rather then a M 10.

[Peter Kilmister]

I have an M240-P. Before that I had an M240. The M10 interested me but then, when I saw the price and lack of additional benefits, I thought I would wait for an M10-P. I'm still waiting.

 

The M240 and M240-P are similar enough to compare as one. High ISO levels can cause excessive grain when developed in colour but really no difference in Black & White. My understanding is that the M10 is better at high ISO levels. Worth extra money? Not for me. An LED light source or flash can reduce the need for high ISO.

 

Exodies gave good advice; spend the money saved on good quality lenses. New lenses are expensive because of sales tax, VAT, TVA (or whatever it is called).

Second hand lenses are a bargain as you don't pay the taxman and there are so few moving parts that they are built to last. Also please remember that Leica lenses use Corning glass (the world's finest) and are then ground by the best lens makers in the world.

 

Instead of buying an M10, I added an APO Summicron 50mm to my lens collection. It would sell today for more than I paid for it and it is the most beautifully made lens I have ever owned. Other lenses that I use frequently may be kept; 24mm and 90mm. Others like the 135mm, 35mm, and 50mm Summilux will get sold when I need cash to pay for care in old age. Again, they will be worth more than I paid for them.

 

To summarise what Exodies said; lenses are for ever, bodies are an expense. 

[jdlaing]

Actually the glass is made by Schott.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would choose the M10 if you shoot a lot at 6400 iso where the M240 is too noisy or if you like underexposure but i have no experience with the M10 so take what i say with a pinch of salt. I would ask your question on the M10 forum and you will get different answers i suspect .

[Jon Warwick]

Instead of buying an M10, I added an APO Summicron 50mm to my lens collection. It would sell today for more than I paid for it and it is the most beautifully made lens I have ever owned.

Buying a 50 APO to pair with my M240 (whilst skipping the M10) was exactly what I did too.

 

I didn't need very high ISO, and as such, I'm still convinced that the 50 APO has achieved (for me) a much bigger upgrade in image quality than by going from M240 to M10.

[otto.f]

I can't really judge the 240, it just never seduced me. When you write that 3200 is good enough for you, a thought came to my mind: some things you buy come with extra benefits that you cannot expect in advance. I think on a long term basis the M10 has some of these things in store: for instance the higher than 3200 ISO's having an artistic value in its own right, they are more than just a necessity in low light. For me there are two essential flaws of the M10 having it used for 9 months now and still owning my M9:

- slow start-up, really noticeable in street work compared to the M9 (M240 is slower)

- battery life: it is a known weakness. But in practice it keeps hunting me, it gives a certain pressure, it's always on your mind. Especially when you work with R-lenses, visoflex etc., let alone wifi and gps. Compared to M9 these batteries aren't very light either, so 3 or 4 extra batteries in your bag isn't what you crave for on a mountain walk.

 

Pro's:

- colors are magnificent when postprocessing quick and dirty and have lots of potential when you want the best out of it; I think this is a great advantage above the 240

- shutter sound is decisively better for for instance theater etc. (don't think it's a lot different from the 240)

- the new rangefinder is a serious progress. With my Summilux75 and Summicron90 I have noticeably less focus errors than with my M9, it's just always spot-on. I think this counts also for the comparison with the 240, maybe a bit less

Edited October 1, 2017 by otto.f

[Kwesi]

Good Morning Everyone,

 

I rented the M240 for a week and fell in love. I have the opportunity to purchase a new M240 for $2000 Canadian cheaper than a M10. I prob shoot at ISO 3200 around 15 percent of the time and the rest mostly around 1000. I can purchase a Zeiss 50 Sonnar or Leica Summarit with the savings. I however do want the M10 as well. Any thoughts on which path to take? Thank you very much everyone!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Welcome to the forum,

If this is your first Leica M digital, then start your journey with the current one - a great way to avoid time consuming GAS! Also, if as you say you mostly shoot at ISO 1000, then 3200 useable limit won't be enough. get a used 50 Sonnar or Summarit and get to work. The sooner you run out of GAS money, the better your photos will look

[TheCanadian1]

Thanks everyone for the advice. I'm going to move forward with the M240 and a 50...just not sure which one. I'm pretty excited. Stay tuned

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jmahto]

Good choice. Enjoy.

[epand56]

The M10 is 3mm less thick, and has a better viewfinder, they say (looking inside I can't tell the difference), but with 2000 Canadian dollars less, you can have almost the same, plus the use of an Electronic Viewfinder (great), plus the opportunity of shooting movies (sometimes it is nice to have). Besides, the 2000 dollars saved can provide you a better lens and that, for sure, makes the difference.

Edited October 2, 2017 by epand56

[a.noctilux]

Thanks everyone for the advice. I'm going to move forward with the M240 and a 50...just not sure which one. I'm pretty excited. Stay tuned

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Good choice of M240.

 

I enjoy Summarit-M 2.5/50mm after having (using a lot of/all kind of 50mm for M).

If I had to begin from zero, Summarit-M 50mm would be my first choice.

Balance well with M and small/light with great quality optical and built.

 

Some infos, here : https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/275871-summarit-50-25/

 

side note:

I love and curious to try lenses and keep some or resell others

now I can choose from dozens of 50mm (for M or not weighting less than 100g to more than 1kg) built from 1930 to 201x.

Edited October 2, 2017 by a.noctilux

[bocaburger]

Those who own an M10 are apt to hype its advantages, and those who own an M240 are apt to hype its advantages.  Those who own neither, well, I guess you were looking for firsthand experience.  For such and expensive (at least, to me) purchase as either of these fine cameras, it would be essential for me to shoot both hands-on, preferably on the same occasion.  This is how I opted to go from an M9 to M240, and also how I opted not to go to the M10.  

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Those who own an M10 are apt to hype its advantages, and those who own an M240 are apt to hype its advantages.  Those who own neither, well, I guess you were looking for firsthand experience.  For such and expensive (at least, to me) purchase as either of these fine cameras, it would be essential for me to shoot both hands-on, preferably on the same occasion.  This is how I opted to go from an M9 to M240, and also how I opted not to go to the M10.  

 

Well I own one of each. I'll have to hype both.....

 

The M10 is a better camera in every way. The exceptions are battery life (which is still good on the M10) and the lack of video. Other than that the M10 has a set of incremental improvements in every area that make a noticeable overall difference. The sensor is certainly better as is the RF.

 

For me the M10 would be the obvious choice unless you want video.

 

Gordon

[Jeff S]

You already rented the M240. Why not just rent the M10 and decide which one better suits your needs and preferences?

 

I ended up trading my M240 for an M10 after testing, with no regrets. But you might come to a different conclusion. Both are very capable machines.

 

Jeff

[Kwesi]

Thanks everyone for the advice. I'm going to move forward with the M240 and a 50...just not sure which one. I'm pretty excited. Stay tuned

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

a 6 bit coded 50/v5 would be a great choice. M240 is fussy with aftermarket coded lenses.

[jcatral14]

I was also in the same dilemma and in the end I went the 240 route. From what I have read on the 240, it can easily do 3200 and you said most of your shooting is at 1000 anyway. Pocket the savings and get lenses. You can always upgrade the body later on. Good luck!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[epand56]

Other than that the M10 has a set of incremental improvements in every area that make a noticeable overall difference. The sensor is certainly better as is the RF.

 

For me the M10 would be the obvious choice unless you want video.

 

Gordon

 

I haven't still seen a single picture taken with the M10 that shows me all those improvements or makes me regret not buying it. It's a matter of how any of us intend photography. It took me several years (maybe eight) to switch from the M8 to the M240. In that case the improvements were great. But switching from the M240 to the M10 is quite useless IMHO. I consider the Leica a fabulous camera, not a silly phone i must change any couple years. I like to use it and get used to it. Maybe in the future, when the M14  or 15 will be out, and only if the improvements will be really surprising, i will buy one.